JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

A large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment.

But a number of witnesses viewing a large fragment claimed it had hair on it.



On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat."

And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline."

And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it."


Thanks Clint Hill , Bobby Joe Dale H.B. McClain. for proving the Autopsy photo id a fake .



MORE ''Actual Evidence ''.

[FISHY1118]

What did Oswald take to work on the morning of Nov 22, 1963?


CURTAIN RODS ANYONE ?


A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf.

A second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

A third fact is that the rifle went from Oswald's scope reinstallation on Nov 11 and the rifle's removal from the garage on that date, to being on the 6th floor of the TSBD implicated in the assassination of JFK, by Nov 22, possibly by means of the party to whom Oswald conveyed the rifle.

A fourth fact is that Oswald routinely took paper bags with him to work whenever Buell Frazier drove him from Irving. He did so to carry his lunch. Therefore that he did so on Fri Nov 22 is not in itself unusual. What was different was the paper bag's length, but not his carrying a paper bag to work.

A fifth fact is Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 was longer than normal for carrying his lunch. This is established from the testimonies of Buell and Linnie Mae Frazier. They told what they saw--Oswald carrying a paper bag of a certain length.

A sixth fact is that unanimous testimony of those who saw the bag that Oswald carried rules out that that paper bag could have carried the rifle, which is 34" even if disassembled. This point on the length of the bag has been underestimated but is strong. There are the estimates of Buell and Linnie Mae as to lengths; the manner Linnie Mae saw Oswald carrying it holding it at the top and the bottom not hitting the ground; the way Buell saw him carry it cupped in his right hand with the top under his right shoulder; the FBI measurement of how far on Frazier's car's back seat Frazier marked its length when seeing it laying there (FBI measurement by the rear car seat method: 27"); the DPD both having Buell and Linnie Mae estimate with their hands, and also by making physical paper replicas, reconstructions of the bag's length, over and over and over the DPD had them do this (according to Buell) ... ca. 25-27", not 38".

A seventh fact is that Buell Frazier's testimony in particular is so firm and so steadfast that it is either correct or he has been dishonest, but it is not reasonable that he was mistaken by that magnitude of error (of mistaking a 38" bag for a 25-27" length which Frazier has said from day one is accurate to within about an inch on his estimate).

In other words, in addition to no non-circular positive evidence for identifying the paper bag Oswald carried to work that morning with the 38" paper bag of TSBD paper found in the TSBD--and unanimous opposing witness testimony as to its length and rejection of such an identification--if one holds to an identification of the two paper bags it also is difficult to avoid the necessity to assume Buell Frazier actually lied at the outset, and was not simply mistaken, to insist and describe a 38" length was only 25-27" as he did. (The simpler solution is they simply are not the same paper bags, and Frazier was not lying but truthful.)

An eighth fact is that there was a large paper bag, 38" long, made from TSBD wrapping paper, noticed and found near the shell hulls at the 6th floor of the TSBD, which was associated with the rifle (by apparent fibers association with the blanket of Oswald in Ruth Paine's garage in which the rifle had been stored), and associated with Oswald (by a palm print and a fingerprint). So the FBI lab.

But a ninth fact is there is no evidence whatsoever that identifies the smaller bag of ca. 25-27" length (Buell Frazier), or ca. 27" length (Linnie Mae Randle), with the larger 38" TSBD-wrapping paper bag. The lengths were significantly different from testimony of every witness who saw the paper bag Oswald carried that morning, with no witness and no forensic evidence testifying to an identification of those two bags. And Buell Frazier repeatedly said the paper bag Oswald brought with him in the car that morning looked like a lightweight retail store bag, not the 38" handmade one from heavier-duty TSBD wrapping paper.

(To emphasize this ninth point: there has been some controversy over the find circumstances and chain of custody of the large, 38", TSBD-wrapping paper bag believed associated with the rifle. That entire set of issues is bypassed here, because no relevance is established in terms of grounds for identifying that 38" bag as the paper bag Oswald brought to work that morning, which is the subject under discussion. The testimonies of both witnesses who saw the bag Oswald brought to work that morning are opposed to such an identification, and no witness or forensic evidence identifies them. It is not an argument that the identification is necessary to account for how the rifle got into the TSBD building, since there were 11 days and a possible if not likely further party intervening between Oswald's removal of the rifle on Nov 11 from Ruth Paine's garage, to prepare it for a conveyance, and the date of the assassination. If Oswald remains a possibility for the means of entrance of that rifle into the TSBD, given that he was the next-to-last in possession and worked in the TSBD, the Nov 11 date for Oswald's preparation of the rifle for conveyance means neither Oswald nor Nov 22 are the only possibilities for how the rifle got there. The rifle could have been brought in any of those eleven days, by a possessor of that rifle after Oswald.)

And a tenth fact is that in all likelihood it can be excluded that Oswald's paper bag on Nov 22 contained curtain rods either, no matter what he may have told Buell Frazier. Oswald himself under interrogation denied that it contained curtain rods. He said that bag contained his lunch. The only reason for curtain rods entering the Oswald paper bag discussion at all is solely Buell Frazier who said that is what Oswald told him the bag contained (and he may have told that to Linnie Mae the night of Thu Nov 21), plus the plausibility that a ca. 27" paper bag is about the right length to carry curtain rods.

Note that the sole evidence that Oswald claimed curtain rods is the same witness whose testimony LNers resolutely reject concerning the length of that paper bag, Buell Frazier. On the basis of no witness or forensic testimony, some insist Frazier was mistaken on the length, but right (not mistaken) in claiming Oswald said it was curtain rods.

The evidence weighing against curtain rods in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning is: Oswald's room on N. Beckley had no need for curtain rods of a length that could be carried in a 25-27" paper bag (there was a bent super-long single curtain rod in Oswald's room photographed a day later, but that was a much longer length); Oswald never mentioned anything about curtain rods to Ruth Paine (Oswald is not known to have stolen property from Ruth otherwise); no curtain rods are known to have turned up at the TSBD; there is no corroboration that Oswald was carrying curtain rods; and if Oswald had carried curtain rods it makes sense that he would say so to his interrogators instead of denying it. And last but not least, an assumption of curtain rods is not necessary to account for the 25-27" length of the paper bag, or indicated from that length.

Synthesis

These ten points deliver a conclusion that what was in Oswald's paper bag from Irving that morning was, as he said to his interrogators, his lunch, full stop. Oswald denied it was curtain rods to his interrogators when asked. The only reason there is no record he directly denied it was a disassembled rifle in the paper bag is because there is no record he was asked that question.

(Side point: Is it even clear that Oswald ever was told that any rifle, let alone his own, had been found on the 6th floor of his workplace? Marina was shown the rifle on Fri evening, and the entire world other than Oswald knew through news reporting about the rifle found in the TSBD and then reports that it had been traced to Oswald. But did Oswald know that during the two days before he was killed? He was not shown the rifle, and is there record in any interrogators' notes or news footage that Oswald was told that a rifle had been found on the 6th floor and traced to him? Oswald was asked if he had ever owned a rifle and he said he had neither owned nor possessed one since returning from the Soviet Union. He denied any mail-order purchase even in the case of the revolver which he did notdeny owning. In the case of the revolver, he gave a different story that he had obtained it from a retail store in Fort Worth in the spring of 1963. That particular prevarication is of interest because it was not for the motive of denying he had the handgun, but only of where he had obtained it. Why conceal that? Was a role as a government informant or sting operation, perhaps related to the Dodd Subcommittee investigation of mail-order firearms purchases, in the background and Oswald was preserving cover of that? If Oswald's case had gone to trial would he through an attorney have argued that he did not consider that rifle personally his, but a government agency's? And that he had dissembled about ordering it by mail on similar grounds as the government dissembling about involvement in plans to invade Cuba--to protect an undercover operation? Did Oswald even expect his case to come to trial, or did he anticipate release prior to trial from intervention which did not happen in time for him? Some things may never be known due to his untimely death.)

Neither rifle nor curtain rods: the lunch solution

The lunch explanation of the contents of his paper bag brought to work with him, which was Oswald's own answer to his interrogators, is plausible. Oswald never denied he had an over-size length paper bag for his lunch, but explained (reasonably) that bag sizes vary and one used what was available. Oswald said he had had a cheese sandwich, a banana and an apple for lunch. It would be unusual if Oswald had not brought his lunch with him. Never mind what Frazier said Oswald said, this is the reality: Oswald normally brought his lunch, said he did so that day, never told his interrogators otherwise, and the 25-27" x 6" (Buell) or x 8" (Linnie Mae) width paper bag is the size of paper bags for baguettes or certain kinds of bread such as Italian or French bread. Both the ways in which Linnie Mae and Buell saw him carrying it are consistent with how one would carry a lunch in such a bag--either holding it by the top and the bottom almost reaches the ground (what Linnie Mae saw in Irving), or, perhaps to avoid the bottom risking hitting the ground, carrying it with the right palm cupped under it and the upper part of the bag held by his upper arm against his upper body as he walked (what Buell saw in Dallas).

On whether Buell was truthful in telling of Oswald saying it was curtain rods, and that Oswald said curtain rods was the reason for his trip to Irving, that is a judgment call but I judge it is likely true. Buell asking Oswald the reason for the unexpected trip on a Thursday is a reasonable question of curiosity from a driver, and it is equally believable that Oswald might not wish to disclose his personal business so made up a reason: "curtain rods", perhaps drawing from some mention from an earlier time about curtains or curtain rods. (Note when Oswald was told Buell had said he said curtain rods, Oswald answered Buell must be confusing it with an earlier occasion, slightly different from a simple denial.) Buell on another occasion said the reason Oswald went out on Thursday night, not Friday, was because Oswald planned to take a driving test that weekend. Frazier would not have then known the real reason, in terms of innocent explanation unrelated to planning to kill JFK, was he had missed the previous weekend with his wife and children in Irving (due to Ruth Paine's girl's birthday party), and, separately, Marina was angry with him and apparently was not speaking to him over the phone. Oswald, described by Buell as not very talkative anyway, may have told Buell "curtain rods" rather than "Marina is angry with me and that is why I am going to try to work things out with her". There could even have been a further reason still: had Lee come into unexpected money? Marina in Irving had nearly $180, the equivalent of ca. $1800 in today's money, in cash in her room, from Lee, after the assassination. Had that $180 cash been saved over time, or given Marina the night before, or some combination of both?

Marina told of Lee having urged her to rent an apartment with him that weekend, promising to buy Marina a washing machine, etc.--things which involved immediate outlays of large sums of money--which would be consistent if Lee had come into money, and hoped to have his family reunited under one roof that weekend, to go out Thursday night, cash in hand, to arrange it with Marina.

In short, the timing of the trip to Irving, the reason for dissembling to Buell over the reason for the trip (the bogus "curtain rods" reason), and the variable size of the paper bag for his lunch, are all of those reasonably explained as coincidences and unrelated to the JFK assassination. It is not necessary to suppose Oswald was plotting to assassinate Kennedy in explanation of any of those three things which are amenable to mundane, everyday explanation.

The evasive leaving from the TSBD following the assassination, on the other hand, is not mundane, everyday behavior but is also not necessarily indicative of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination, as distinguished from an unusual reaction for other reason, such as, e.g. suspecting he had been set up or was in danger of being killed by the assassins of JFK (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...ackets-112.pdf).

Postscript on the 38" paper bag made from TSBD paper

On the 38" TSBD paper bag claimed to be associated with the rifle on the 6th floor, one possibility is that 38" paper bag was made by Oswald at an earlier time, perhaps toward the end of the week ending Fri Nov 8, and then taken to Irving with him on his person, for the purpose of holding what Oswald believed at that time was his 36" length Mannlicher-Carcano (not disassembled). Oswald had ordered a 36" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and is it possible he still had not noticed or realized that the one he had been shipped was actually 40", not 36"? Thinking it was 36" (the length he had ordered), he would make the bag 38" to fully enclose it. The FBI match of the paper of the 38" bag to the Nov 22 TSBD paper roll on the first floor TSBD (but not to TSBD paper sampled on Nov 26) can be accounted for if either the particular roll sampled on Nov 22 (there were four rolls in simultaneous use?) had also been in use Nov 8, or more than one roll was from the same batch of paper, across a time span of 14-15 or so days. There was a non-match of a sample of TSBD paper on Nov 26 to both the 38" bag and a sample of TSBD paper of Nov 22, but that does not necessarily mean a paper match was not possible from an earlier time over a duration longer than 4 days.

Oswald would have made the 38" bag at TSBD say around Thu or Frid Nov 7-8 in preparation for a planned removal of the rifle from the garage in Irving on Nov 11. He would have used TSBD wrapping paper and the 3" tape there since that was free and nothing else was easily available. He would have designed the paper bag to enclose the whole rifle, but he did not have the rifle in hand to check the size was right when making the bag. He would have discovered the 38" bag did not completely cover the 40" rifle only on Nov 11 in Irving. Since he was spending money for which he had worked hard for a reinstallation of a scope that he did not like or use, and since he never practiced shooting with the rifle after spending money to have the scope reinstalled and sighted, that is consistent with the purpose being a conveyance. How the logistics of such a conveyance might have worked is unknown--there is a black hole of information between Nov 11 and Nov 22 concerning whereabouts and custody of the rifle, after the rifle was removed from Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on the morning of Nov 11. There is no knowledge the rifle was ever returned to Ruth Paine's garage after its removal from that garage on Nov 11.

In default of a better explanation (such as meeting someone for a handover that day), I assume after the scope reinstallation had been done and the rifle sighted-in by Dial Ryder at the Irving Sport Shop on Nov 11, that Oswald--who with Marina and their children was driving Michael Paine's second car (a blue-and-white Olds without either Michael's or Ruth Paine's knowledge)--drove to a bus station and put the rifle in a rented storage locker. The rifle would be in the 38" paper bag with the 40" rifle sticking out of the open top of the bag by 2".

The conveyance of the rifle could then occur by means of Oswald giving the key to the storage locker to someone.

Oswald could have told whoever was buying it from him, as an enhancement of value, that he had just had the rifle sighted in and told the person where, at the Irving Sport Shop. That could be the mechanism for the information that an anonymous caller called in to both the FBI and the press, the weekend of the assassination, with the anonymous tip that Oswald had had the rifle sighted-in at a gun shop in Irving (easily found by the FBI, and that tip is how Dial Ryder entered the story when the FBI made inquiries).

The rifle then went into the TSBD at some point prior to the morning of Nov 22, 1963, sighted-in and not disassembled, and the 38" paper bag entered with it, though not necessarily brought in by Oswald, but rather by the ones in last possession of the rifle, the one or ones to whom Oswald had sold it.

And naturally Oswald's fingerprints would be on the rifle since it had been his, and on the 38" paper bag under this reconstruction, even though Oswald may not have been responsible for either of those items going to the 6th floor of the TSBD.

For all we know the rifle sale or conveyance on the part of Oswald some time on or after Nov 11, 1963, could have been in continuation of informant or "sting" work being done by Oswald for an agency, that backfired in the assassination when Oswald found himself set up to be implicated by means of the rifle connection.

Again the key essential point, that which I regard as a fact established, is the scope reinstallation by Oswald on that rifle on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 (link again: https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf). In that article I wrote in the conclusion how Dial Ryder of the Irving Sport Shop was caught up in the saga by sheer accident.

But Dial Ryder is not the point, is beside the point. I should have brought out in that conclusion instead the point that actually matters: the rifle, the Mannlicher-Carcano, did not leave Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 22, but eleven days earlier on Nov 11. And Oswald was not the last possessor of that rifle prior to the assassination, but its next-to-last possessor.

It is possible the assassination was done by the last possessors of that rifle, not the next-to-last one.

That is the point that matters.

[OneRound]

HS,

I'm as guilty of amateur psychology as anyone else on here but I don't see that it offers a credible account of Oswald as lone gunman. I can fully understand why the WC wanted to depoliticise the crime but in the long term it has not served them well.

I read your account recently of Oswald's suspicious activities leading up to the assassination. From my CT standpoint I have to suspend disbelief at various points in the material evidence but allowing for that, I thought you set out a reasonable case. And if we leap forward to the Tippit murder and the subsequent arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre, that too hangs together for the most part.

However there are massive problems in between and afterwards. On shooting Kennedy, Oswald had two obvious options: hold his ground on the 6th floor and go down in a Cagneyesque blaze of glory with his Carcano; or get out of the building as fast as possible and head for Mexico en route to Cuba. (Rather than a hero's welcome I suspect a bullet in the back of his head would have been more likely in Havana but Oswald was perhaps young enough to believe differently.)

But he does neither of these. He walks (he did not 'flee') from the building, catches a bus and goes back to the very place he is known to live. Why? To collect his revolver possibly, but what good will that do when every police officer in the USA is literally gunning for him? If he wanted a shoot out he could have got that on the 6th floor. Why delay the martyrdom?

We are then told Oswald was walking (aimlessly it seems to me) around Oak Cliff and is apprehended by Tippit. So where was Oswald, now tooled up, going? No one seems to know. Was it really the Texas Theatre or was that a knee jerk response following the murder of Tippit? The psychological framework which was just about credible enough to place Oswald on the 6th floor with a Carcano in hand is now like wet tissue paper.

On arrest, Oswald had the greatest opportunity in history (given the development of live media) to announce his martyrdom, whether political, social or psychological. His words would ring through history. Instead, he says he is innocent despite his knowledge (according to later investigation) that there is a paper trail that tracks him and his palmprint to the gun used in the assassination.

So was Oswald on a suicide mission on 22 November? Did he strike lucky and then walk around bemused by his temporary good fortune? Did he have second thoughts and decide martyrdom was not his thing? Did he assassinate the POTUS because his marriage was failing and at the age of 24, with two young children, he saw no future? The psychological implications are inadequate in my view.

Hi cobalt and all,

In one of the early A6 threads, a poster of the time Victor commented that we will never know the full story as James Hanratty never explained his own starring role. I feel the same applies here to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Herlock Sholmes]

More pages of stuff cut and pasted from conspiracy theory websites which he classes as evidence and which George criticises me for mentioning.

Shall we all do this? Shall we see who can out-cut and out-paste each other?

In the lasting we have the ‘evidence’ of a bloke taking two rifles to work at the TSBD 2 days before the assassination. Clearly then he hid them on the sixth floor for an assassin to find them.

[GBinOz]

It is an easy one, but not in the way that you think.

Klein's Sporting Goods had run out of the 36-inch long (91 cm) Carcano model M91 TS carbines and sent Oswald a 40.1-inch Carcano M91/38.

The document you post appears to be an alteration of an order for Mannlicher Carcano M91TS to be replaced by Beretta Terni M98/38 placed by Kleins with Crescent Firearms. The order alteration is dated 15 Jan 1962. How does this relate to Klein's advertisement in the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman magazine for a C20-T750, for which Oswald allegedly placed his order using a coupon clipped from that advertisement?